[12/11/1996–09/23/1997]: 42-t-26444785-20060476F-001-002-2013

ARMS Email System
• MR. WILL: The people defending this act wanted to make the Internet
analogous to radio, which is regulated. But it's regulated because radio
is singularly intrusive, and a child on a random course up and down the
dial could on unregulated radio encounter something offensive. To
encounter something offensive on the Internet, you have to look for it;
you have to know what you're looking for. There may be 10,000 pornographic
sites on the Internet, but oniy 3 percent of the commercial sites are '
devoted to that stuff. It's so huge,
MR. DONALDSON: I know, I might as well confess
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: It's not that you can find it. You don't have to
weaken the First Amendment in order to get these protections. The
technology is catching up with people'S real concerns, and you can put
something like a V-chip on the Internet. And I think the justices were
right, therefore, to hold the line against a further weakening of the
First Amendment.
MS. DOUGLASS: Well, they say you can put something like 'a V-chip on the
Internet, but the fact is there are a lot of flaws in the software. Every
time they try to find some way to block it off, kids are a heck of a lot
smarter than their computer-illiterate parents. And it really is a
question. I mean, there has to be a way other than just constant
monitoring of your kids, which you can't always do, as much as you try, to
keep them away from this stuff. Prosecutors at the Justice Department will
tell you that if you log on as a , you can in 15 minutes make
contact with pedophile.
MR. DONALDSON: Well, I want to hear someone really defend the First,
~endment issue here. George, you
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: I think I just did,'Sam.
,MR. DONALDSON: You did and you did; But I mean, I want to hear a table
thumping.
MR. WILL: well, part of the problem, Sam, was the congressional
language said, and they were drawing on Supreme Court opinion, said that
they banned certain material offensive to communitY,standards.
Now, what is the pertinent community in cyberspace? What is it? ,Where
is it, for that matter? I mean, we're dealing with a technology here that
render's obsolete the vocabulary that's been used in prior First Amendment
cases.
MR. DONALDSON: All right, let's go to the Religious Freedom Act, which
Congress passed and which the Supreme Court says no, that's not
constitutional.
MR. KRISTOL: I think this was the first week in the history of the
United States that the Supreme Court struck down three congressional laws
in one,week, the two'we've m'entioned and the Brady bill. The first two
were passed by huge majorities, the Decency Act and the Religious Freedom
~ct, signed by the president, supported by both parties.
'It is a striking week, and even though the court might have had
technically pretty good arguments in each case, in the old days, the court
had a great deal of deference to Congress, they tried to construe the acts
to be constitutional, I do think it says something about the Supreme Court
and its sense of its role that it cheerfully strikes aside these pretty
major laws that Congress passed.
MR. WILL: The court had a terrific argument in that it was provoked by
the Congress. In 1996, when the Congress passed this act, Congress put in
legislative finding, it said to the Supreme Court, in a 1990 case, you
got wrong the free exercise of'religi'im clause. "
Now, in 1803, the Supreme Court said, we're the ones who construe,the
Constitution, we do not take this dictate from -
MR. KRISTOL:Congress has a right to construe the Constitution as well,
as does the executive branch, aright and an obligation. And what's
striking in both these cases -- in all three of these cases; with the
Brady bill, too -- is that the Congress of the United States, the
president 'Of the United States, the Justice Department of the United
States all thought this was constitutional, 'and the court felt
MR. DONALDSON: But since Justice Marshall, the court has said, we have
the final construing.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: That's right. What's really holding the lI)ajority
in this court together is a deep suspicion of federal power., '
I mean, they really believe the federal government, whether it's Congress
or the executive, is the real threat to liberty, not states' rights. And I
think that's going to continue to play out in the coming decisions,
whether it's on affirmative action next year, or,if you look at the
assisted suicide, they pretty much upheld the bans on assisted suicide:
ARMS Email System
Page 10 of 15
Page 10 oft 5